Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 139

Thread: Who's responsible for gender roles? Biology or Society?

  1. #1
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,364

    Default Who's responsible for gender roles? Biology or Society?

    One more reason to hate Picketty: the world Inequality Report 2022. A lesson of the World Inequality Report 2022 is gender inequality. Thanks to the data collected by Theresa Neef and Anne-Sophie Robillard, it is now possible to measure the evolution of women's share of total labour income for all countries of the world.
    I quote,
    This shows the extent to which gender inequalities remain high: at the global level, in 2020, women received barely 35% of labour income (compared to more than 65% for men). This share was 31% in 1990 and 33% in 2000: we can therefore see that progress exists but is extremely slow. In Europe, the share of women will reach 38% in 2020, which is still very far from parity.
    This indicator gives a less watered-down and more accurate view of reality than the explanation for a given job: it shows precisely to what extent women do not have access to the same jobs and working hours as men, particularly as a result of multiple prejudices and discrimination and the lesser efforts made by the public authorities to structure the jobs in which women are most present (in particular in personal care, mass retailing and cleaning jobs). The slow progress observed around the world over the last few decades also reflects the growing share of the wage bill captured by very high earners, who are overwhelmingly male. In some regions, such as China, there has even been a decline in the share of women in total labour income. All this calls for much more proactive measures than those adopted so far.
    Take a look, see figures. chapter in the World Inequality Report 2022.

    --
    Edit. Let's face the facts, the place of women is at home
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 






    The religious factor,




    Last edited by Ludicus; January 24, 2022 at 03:28 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  2. #2

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    One more reason to hate Picketty: the world Inequality Report 2022. A lesson of the World Inequality Report 2022 is gender inequality. Thanks to the data collected by Theresa Neef and Anne-Sophie Robillard, it is now possible to measure the evolution of women's share of total labour income for all countries of the world.
    I quote,

    This shows the extent to which gender inequalities remain high: at the global level, in 2020, women received barely 35% of labour income (compared to more than 65% for men). This share was 31% in 1990 and 33% in 2000: we can therefore see that progress exists but is extremely slow. In Europe, the share of women will reach 38% in 2020, which is still very far from parity.
    This indicator gives a less watered-down and more accurate view of reality than the explanation for a given job: it shows precisely to what extent women do not have access to the same jobs and working hours as men, particularly as a result of multiple prejudices and discrimination and the lesser efforts made by the public authorities to structure the jobs in which women are most present (in particular in personal care, mass retailing and cleaning jobs). The slow progress observed around the world over the last few decades also reflects the growing share of the wage bill captured by very high earners, who are overwhelmingly male. In some regions, such as China, there has even been a decline in the share of women in total labour income. All this calls for much more proactive measures than those adopted so far.

    Take a look, see figures. chapter in the World Inequality Report 2022.


    That is really jumping to conclusions, and blatantly ignores all other possible explanations - much more plausible explanations than some sort of global conspiracy to keep women down. Women do have access to the same jobs and working hours in the majority of Western countries. But there is still the matter of choice, and choice is informed by interest: no matter how much incentives have been made to attract women to traditionally male occupations (military, police, fire fighting, construction etc.), it is still the fact that boys tend to be more interested in such occupations than women. This is changing somewhat, but there is no switch you can flick to change such factors over night. More importantly, however, even in countries where everything is done to incentivise the man to stay home with the kids, it is still by and large mothers who actually want to. As such, women voluntarily reduce their working hours when they have kids so they can spend more time with them - and men will increase their working hours to make up for the lost income. This is down to personal choice, often in spite of government incentives.

    When one compares single women with single men, and in the same jobs, one does not find a disparity in wages at all. But women tend to gravitate towards jobs in the public sector and part time jobs more than men, out of personal interest for the jobs in question, because of the security the public sector provides over the private, and out of convenience. This gives a very skewed image when taken as a whole - but then you are no longer comparing like with like.

    Women do have the same access to the same jobs as men - although some physically demanding jobs will naturally preclude more women than men. But no one is barred from any profession based on gender. However, the focus is always on incentivising women into getting jobs traditionally held by men - but this sort of one-sided focus will not achieve much. Jobs traditionally held by women still need to be filled, and so long as these are still dominated by women, it is women they will attract. Only when it is socially ok for men to do women's jobs can we hope to see the game board straightening out. Personally, though, I don't see why it's important that men and women have the exact same interests. We're not going to be able to change the biological imperatives no matter how much we try, and I don't really see any good arguments for trying, either. I say it's ok for the sexes to generally be interested in different things, so long as no one is barred from pursuing the career they want on account of gender, which they are not.

  3. #3

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    This is down to personal choice, often in spite of government incentives.
    In sociology, personal choice is also an outcome of systemic factors, and can't be written off as a control. The pertinent question is why are men and women making these choices in aggregate? The fact that different countries see men and women making different choices shows that policy is a far more influencing determinant than biology, which there's no evidence for (see my last paragraph).

    but this sort of one-sided focus will not achieve much.
    It helps achieve gender parity.

    We're not going to be able to change the biological imperatives no matter how much we try, and I don't really see any good arguments for trying, either.
    There are no biological imperatives; this is sexism by definition. The only, and I mean only gender difference in decision making we've discovered is the effect that testosterone has on risk tolerance. Everything else is entirely the result of social factors, not biological.

  4. #4

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Quote Originally Posted by Basilius View Post
    In sociology, personal choice is also an outcome of systemic factors, and can't be written off as a control. The pertinent question is why are men and women making these choices in aggregate? The fact that different countries see men and women making different choices shows that policy is a far more influencing determinant than biology, which there's no evidence for (see my last paragraph).
    Different countries see men and women making the same different choices. That is to say, men still gravitate towards "male" occupations and women gravitate towards "female" occupations. All over the world. And why would anyone be surprised?


    It helps achieve gender parity.
    Not on its own, no. Let's say you have a board with red and blue marbles. The red marbles are all on the left side, the blue ones on the right. You want them equally distributed. What do you achieve by moving only the red marbles?



    There are no biological imperatives; this is sexism by definition.
    No, that's science. To pretend there are no biological imperatives is to deny evolution.


    The only, and I mean only gender difference in decision making we've discovered is the effect that testosterone has on risk tolerance. Everything else is entirely the result of social factors, not biological.
    That's a pretty bold claim. Are you really suggesting men want babies to the same extent women do? Are you really suggesting fathers bond with the newborn to the same extent mothers do? And surely you are not suggesting that women have the same protective instincts towards adult men, the same way men have for adult women? When we see different behavioural modes between sexes among other mammals, is that culture, too? And can you explain how culture all over the world has developed more or less the same gender roles? What is culture based on, if not our nature? If culture is random, we would expect to see random gender roles globally and historically - but we do not. Not remotely. Testosterone is not the only hormone that affects our behaviour.

    Moreover, I do not know what your position on transgenderism is, but unless you are in favour of re-classifying it as a mental disorder, I would reconsider my position if I were you. After all, if the only difference between the sexes is testosterone, then how can anyone feel like they are trapped in the wrong body, unless it's all in their heads?
    Last edited by Kissaki; January 24, 2022 at 05:59 PM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Respectfully Kissaki, you have not read the sociological literature on this and you are stating things that are easily rebutted.

    Different countries see men and women making the same different choices.
    The degree is staggeringly different depending on the country you look at, suggesting policy outcomes are what's relevant. You would not expect to see this if the differential were genetic.

    Not on its own, no.
    I didn't claim that.

    That's a pretty bold claim.
    No, it's not. You can list a serious of rhetorical questions on a video game forum, but when we sit down and try and test differences between the genders that is the result of biological and not sociological factors, we aren't able to find meaningful behavior differences outside of the effect that testosterone has, and there is no likewise mirroring effect of estrogen. Everything you list can and is explained by nurture rather than nature. If you were able to find the biological cause of those differences, you'd win a Nobel Prize.

    And can you explain how culture all over the world has developed more or less the same gender roles? What is culture based on, if not our nature?
    Stronger physical strength has allowed human males to overpower and subjugate human females in every major society, and the gender roles stemmed from that. In liberal societies that alleviate female subjugation we likewise see a shift in role preferences, proportional to the degree to which that subjugation is addressed. Combined with our understanding of biology, there's no reason to think it's biological. You're just asserting observations and intuitions that doesn't match the data.
    Last edited by Basilius; January 24, 2022 at 08:47 PM.

  6. #6

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Quote Originally Posted by Basilius View Post
    Respectfully Kissaki, you have not read the sociological literature on this and you are stating things that are easily rebutted.
    A field that almost universally excludes heritability a priori in seeking to explain human behavior, should not be taken seriously when discussing the biological basis of human behavior, in light of the following:

    Behavior genetics is the study of the manner in which genetic variation affects psychological phenotypes (traits), including cognitive abilities, personality, mental illness, and social attitudes. In a seminal article published in this journal, Turkheimer (2000) noted three robust empirical regularities that had by then emerged from the literature on behavior genetics. He dubbed these regularities the “Three Laws of Behavior Genetics.” They are:

    1. All human behavioral traits are heritable. [That is, they are affected to some degree by genetic variation.]

    2. The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes.

    3. A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.

    These observations surprised many outsiders to the field of behavior genetics at the time, yet they remain an accurate broad-brush summary of the empirical evidence fourteen years later. Indeed, they have attained the status of “null hypotheses”—the most reasonable a priori expectations to hold in the absence of contrary evidence (Turkheimer, Pettersson, & Horn, 2014).
    Regarding sex differences, this has a biological basis:

    Abstract: The magnitude and variability of sex differences in vocational interests were examined in the present meta-analysis for Holland's (1959, 1997) categories (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional), Prediger's (1982) Things-People and Data-Ideas dimensions, and the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) interest areas. Technical manuals for 47 interest inventories were used, yielding 503,188 respondents. Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11), science (d = 0.36), and mathematics (d = 0.34) interests. Average effect sizes varied across interest inventories, ranging from 0.08 to 0.79. The quality of interest inventories, based on professional reputation, was not differentially related to the magnitude of sex differences. Moderators of the effect sizes included interest inventory item development strategy, scoring method, theoretical framework, and sample variables of age and cohort. Application of some item development strategies can substantially reduce sex differences. The present study suggests that interests may play a critical role in gendered occupational choices and gender disparity in the STEM fields.
    And one of the reasons we know that is because prenatal androgen exposure has a significant effect on it (for example). Although, it would be absurd to assume otherwise, considering everything else we know about evolutionary biology. In my experience, the impetus to think otherwise usually derives from a moralistic fallacy and/or exposure to advocacy research which employs methodology that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    This also ties into the gender-equality paradox:

    The gender-equality paradox is the finding that various gender differences in personality and occupational choice are larger in more gender equal countries. Larger differences are found in Big Five personality traits, Dark Triad traits, self-esteem, depression, personal values, occupational and educational choices. This phenomenon is seemingly paradoxical because one would expect the differences to be reduced as countries become more gender egalitarian.[1][2]

    Various explanations for the paradox have been proposed. Some scholars suggest that more stereotypes and gendered expectations in more gender equal countries are responsible and that women in less developed nations are more likely to choose STEM fields, based on the increased need for security and good pay. Others theorize that deeply rooted and intrinsic gender differences are less restrained and materialize more easily in gender equal countries.[3][4]
    My academic background is in biocultural anthropology, so I could discuss this issue at length, but delving deeper into it would be more appropriate for the Academy than this particular thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  7. #7

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Quote Originally Posted by Basilius View Post
    The degree is staggeringly different depending on the country you look at, suggesting policy outcomes are what's relevant. You would not expect to see this if the differential were genetic.
    Which countries are you looking at, in that case? Because although the percentiles do naturally vary from one country to the next, they show the same in each country: women are more likely to work part time than men, women have a greater preference towards the public sector than men, women are more likely to be the stay-at-home parent than men, women are more likely to be single parents than men. I am not aware of any country where the ratio for any of these are reversed.


    I didn't claim that.
    You kinda sorta did, you know, when you said it would help create gender parity - in reply to me saying that a one-sided focus would not achieve much.


    No, it's not. You can list a serious of rhetorical questions on a video game forum, but when we sit down and try and test differences between the genders that is the result of biological and not sociological factors, we aren't able to find meaningful behavior differences outside of the effect that testosterone has, and there is no likewise mirroring effect of estrogen. Everything you list can and is explained by nurture rather than nature. If you were able to find the biological cause of those differences, you'd win a Nobel Prize.
    Testosterone does have a pretty major effect, though. You cited testosterone as contributing only risk tolerance before, but this is a very incomplete picture. Male risk tolerance is especially tied to the fact that the male brain develops more slowly than the female - specifically the prefrontal cortex, which deals with risk assessment. But this is hardly the only part of the human brain which is sexually dimorphic. The brain has been the subject of extensive study, but I am not aware of any study that concludes the only gender difference is tolerance for risk taking.



    Stronger physical strength has allowed human males to overpower and subjugate human females in every major society, and the gender roles stemmed from that.
    No, that's too simple. Being physically stronger means, theoretically, that the physically strong get to decide which work is "manly work" and which can be left to the women. But assuming it were this simple, how come men have always chosen the same?

    In practice, we have to go back to the mesolithic at least in order to see physical strength as the dominating factor. Because, after all, men do not only dominate women because of the physical disparity, but other men as well. But from the neolithic onwards, when prestige occupations relied less and less on physical strength, we do not see men strong-arming their way to the top. Well, metaphorically that still happens, but physical strength does not account for social mobility - and hasn't for many thousand years. In fact, physically strong men tend to be perfectly happy with socially modest roles, doing manual labour. The military, the police and the fire departments are also predominately male to this day, though it is not power or money that attracts men to these professions.

    Also, it is worth noting that while men do indeed dominate the most privileged positions in society, they also dominate the least privileged positions of society. If it were as simple as "social mobility is tied to physical strength", then you'd expect women at the bottom, because the weakest women do tend to be weaker than the weakest men.

    Personally, I would rather point to a more traditional reason why gender roles have developed pretty much the same all over the world. Because no matter what role you feel physical strength has played, it still begs the question: why are men physically stronger than women? Women are shorter than men, have smaller feet, smaller hands, smaller noses, softer facial features, less muscle tone... and permanent breasts. There isn't any practical reason for this, and the same degree of sexual dimorphism is not to be found in most other mammals. Each of these features only serve to make women appear more vulnerable, which in turn serves to trigger protective instincts. We might have evolved this way because of our social nature - sure, there are other social animals as well, but with complex brains come complex societies, and the message "I'm so small and vulnerable, won't one of you big boys come and protect me" is one way to ensure a guy sticks around - by appealing to his protective instincts. Permanent breasts feature into this beacause they are a signal of infertility, however temporary - a turn-off, by all rights. Yet when every adult female has them, whether they are with young or not, then they do not become an incentive for the male to move on to other, fertile females instead. Somehow, consequently, breasts instead become a source of attraction. And this will naturally affect behavioural patterns.

    This was the case for early man, and the physical signals (and the instincts that go with them) are the same today. Women are not in the same helpless situation today as they would have been 12,000 years ago, but that does not mean that the protection element is removed from gender dynamics. It still means that men want to protect women, and women seek the protection of men, speaking generally. Women still look for financial security when considering a potential partner, but men do not consider this at all when looking for a woman. Oh, you'll find exceptions, I'm sure - but generally, what I said is true. And as all individuals - of all species - tend towards the path of least resistance, this means that so long as these instincts are in play, this gender disparity will also be reflected in the career choices we make.

    I should add that this is not my field of study (my education is in supply chain management), and that the above is very much my own take on what I have studied in an amateur capacity. But I believe it is sound - stands to reason, otherwise I wouldn't have written it

    In liberal societies that alleviate female subjugation we likewise see a shift in role preferences, proportional to the degree to which that subjugation is addressed. Combined with our understanding of biology, there's no reason to think it's biological. You're just asserting observations and intuitions that doesn't match the data.
    Not so much a shift, as merely bridging the gap. There has been subjugation in the past, absolutely - and certainly present cultures are not stain-free of the past. But men and women have not been barred from any career choice for many decades now. We have had affirmative action for about 50 years, and the world is well accustomed to seeing women in every profession. Even Pakistan has had a female head of state. To suggest women are being held back in the West is without merit. There are societal pressures, but these are made by every member of society - including women. In Western countries, these pressures are not only not enforced by the government, but often actively opposed. So you certainly can't blame it on men in power enforcing the status quo. You can make an argument for that in many places in the world (including the aforementioned Pakistan), but not the West.
    Last edited by Kissaki; January 25, 2022 at 02:46 AM.

  8. #8
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    7,104

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    This was the case for early man, and the physical signals (and the instincts that go with them) are the same today. Women are not in the same helpless situation today as they would have been 12,000 years ago, but that does not mean that the protection element is removed from gender dynamics. It still means that men want to protect women, and women seek the protection of men, speaking generally. Women still look for financial security when considering a potential partner, but men do not consider this at all when looking for a woman. Oh, you'll find exceptions, I'm sure - but generally, what I said is true. And as all individuals - of all species - tend towards the path of least resistance, this means that so long as these instincts are in play, this gender disparity will also be reflected in the career choices we make.
    Thats nothing than sexistic .

    Men don't want to protect women because of noble reasons, they want to protect and control their property.

    American clinical psychologist David Lisak, co-author of a 2002 study of undetected rapists,[52] says that compared with non-rapists, both undetected and convicted rapists are measurably more angry at women and more motivated by a desire to dominate and control them, are more impulsive, disinhibited, anti-social, hypermasculine, and less empathic.[53]
    Sexual aggression is often considered a masculine identity characteristic of manhood in some male groups and is significantly correlated to the desire to be held higher in esteem among male peers.[54] Sexually aggressive behavior among young men has been correlated with gang or group membership as well as having other delinquent peers.[55][56]
    Gang rape is often perceived by male perpetrators as a justified method of discouraging or punishing what they consider as immoral behavior among women for example wearing short skirts or visiting bars. In some areas in Papua New Guinea, women can be punished by public gang rape, usually through permission by elders.[57][needs update]
    [COLOR=#202122][FONT=sans-serif][I]Gang rape and mass rape are often used as a means of male bonding. This is particularly evident among soldiers, as gang rape accounts for about three quarters or more of war rape while gang rape accounts for less than a quarter of rapes during peacetime. Commanders sometimes push recruits to rape, as committing rape can be taboo and illegal and so builds loyalty among those involved. Rebel groups who have forced recruitment as opposed to volunteer recruits are more involved in rape as it is believed the recruits start with less loyalty to the group.[58] In Papua New Guinea, urban gangs such as Raskol gangs often require raping women for initiation reasons.[SUP][59]

    Rape - Wikipedia
    Beside that: I don't need a man to feed or to protect me.

    Especially not some keyboard warriors in a gaming forum, which has a long bad reputation for such postings.
    A morning fire - Burning next to you
    Ever getting higher - Keep on rolling through
    ‘Cause we gotta just drive - Oh baby, drive
    We’re gonna drive through the city tonight - Just drive


    The 69 eyes - Drive



  9. #9

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    Thats nothing than sexistic .

    Men don't want to protect women because of noble reasons, they want to protect and control their property.
    Now, that's sexist.

    I do not believe I attributed protective instincts to "noble reasons" anywhere. Instincts are instincts, and the result of evolution. And no, these instincts did not evolve because men "want to protect and control their property" - if anything it's the other way around. These instincts evolved out of a need to survive and procreate. Males do fight for the privilege of reproducing with females, yes - but females are part of this dynamic, and males compete the way they do because that's what the females prefer. Sexual evolution requires the participation of both sexes.

    American clinical psychologist David Lisak, co-author of a 2002 study of undetected rapists,[52] says that compared with non-rapists, both undetected and convicted rapists are measurably more angry at women and more motivated by a desire to dominate and control them, are more impulsive, disinhibited, anti-social, hypermasculine, and less empathic.[53]
    Indeed, compared with non-rapists. So this isn't really relevant to the discussion.

    Sexual aggression is often considered a masculine identity characteristic of manhood in some male groups and is significantly correlated to the desire to be held higher in esteem among male peers.[54] Sexually aggressive behavior among young men has been correlated with gang or group membership as well as having other delinquent peers.[55][56]
    Gang rape is often perceived by male perpetrators as a justified method of discouraging or punishing what they consider as immoral behavior among women for example wearing short skirts or visiting bars. In some areas in Papua New Guinea, women can be punished by public gang rape, usually through permission by elders.[57][needs update]
    [COLOR=#202122][FONT=sans-serif][I]Gang rape and mass rape are often used as a means of male bonding. This is particularly evident among soldiers, as gang rape accounts for about three quarters or more of war rape while gang rape accounts for less than a quarter of rapes during peacetime. Commanders sometimes push recruits to rape, as committing rape can be taboo and illegal and so builds loyalty among those involved. Rebel groups who have forced recruitment as opposed to volunteer recruits are more involved in rape as it is believed the recruits start with less loyalty to the group.[58] In Papua New Guinea, urban gangs such as Raskol gangs often require raping women for initiation reasons.[SUP][59]

    Rape - Wikipedia
    I fail to see how that is relevant, either. People will be worse people when they can get away with it - like, say, in war.

    Beside that: I don't need a man to feed or to protect me.
    And I pointed that out. It's right there in the section you quoted.


    Especially not some keyboard warriors in a gaming forum, which has a long bad reputation for such postings.
    Really? When was the last time I posted on this topic at all?

  10. #10
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    7,104

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Sorry Alhoon, you are the best example, why its pointless to discuss with conservatives.

    Its common fact, that girls have significant better exams than boys.

    Why do more women than men go to university? - BBC News

    So why are there only 1/3 female judges then, if their graduations are in average better?

    The answer is simple male networks.

    But hopeless:

    Conservatives will rant because of male discrimination, even if it are their networks in reality which preserve their privileges and prevent female careers.
    A morning fire - Burning next to you
    Ever getting higher - Keep on rolling through
    ‘Cause we gotta just drive - Oh baby, drive
    We’re gonna drive through the city tonight - Just drive


    The 69 eyes - Drive



  11. #11

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    Statistics.
    You have ~20000 judges. 14000 of them are men, 6000 are women.
    You have 41 positions.
    Out of the 14000 men you promote 8. Out of the 6000 women you promote 33.
    For every 1750 men, you promote 1.
    For every 181 women, you promote 1.
    Do you see the huge disparity there? Men have to be 10 times better than their peers compared to women to be promoted.
    You're not providing any statistics on qualifications. This is not how statistics work. You can not alter what they point at to keep your narrative alive.


    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    Why is it a such a problem to promote qualified male judges?
    It's not. Nothing I have said indicates that. Everything you have said, however, shows that you think there is a problem with promoting qualified female judges. So, yeah, why is it such a problem to promote qualified female judges?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  12. #12

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    So, is it right to discriminate against men because in the past there was discrimination against women?
    If this was a simple case of a business hiring people I would agree with you. But remember that Biden has only appointed 42 judges so far, and that makes up less than 5% of the total (there are currently 870 federal judges). Even though the demographics of those 42 individuals favour women and minorities, it is still the case that the whole body of federal judges does not favour women and minorities. Trump, by contrast, appointed 245 (which is quite a lot for a single term president), of which only 25% were women. And Biden's picks are spread out over 8 circuits and 17 districts. That's an average of less than 2 judges per circuit/district, counting only the circuits and districts which had openings. It's not the upheaval the media portrays it as. I don't know to what degree Biden's nominations replaced men or women - that would require more meticulous research than I am inclined to do right now. But even if all the openings had previously been filled by white men, Biden will still only have slightly moved the average towards being more representative of the overall population.

    And even if that weren't the case, I am still of the position that the POTUS can nominate whomever he wants for whatever reason. It's more about the signal effect than anything.
    Last edited by Kissaki; January 25, 2022 at 07:56 AM.

  13. #13
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,789

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post


    The goal of promotions should not be to achieve parity, but to promote the best candidate. Gender should have no bearing on it, one way or the other.
    It is as wrong of Bidet to promote people based on their genitals as it was for those governors in the 90s.

    This. People often resort to the fallacious view of intentional unequal representation and unequal pay to justify dishonest political goals. The truth of the matter is that men work more than women do and men ask for promotions more often than women do. It's reasonable to expect that when there's a spot open the person who works extra time and openly wants the promotion will get it over the person who doesn't even clock the full 8 hours and never says anything about discontent.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  14. #14
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    7,104

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    I think women would work longer, if they don't have to take the kids from school, make homework with them, cook lunch, do other housework, while the males are sitting lazy on the couch drinking beer and watching TV.

    In Britain in 2016, according to the Office for National Statistics, women did almost 60% more of the unpaid work, on average, than men.

    But thats nothing more than besides the point, as judges are selected because of exams and a job interview, not by promotion because "he/she has sitting 45 minutes more in the bureau drinking coffee".
    A morning fire - Burning next to you
    Ever getting higher - Keep on rolling through
    ‘Cause we gotta just drive - Oh baby, drive
    We’re gonna drive through the city tonight - Just drive


    The 69 eyes - Drive



  15. #15

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    Sorry Alhoon, you are the best example, why its pointless to discuss with conservatives.

    Its common fact, that girls have significant better exams than boys.

    Why do more women than men go to university? - BBC News
    That's not what your link says. Your link says girls have slightly better exams than boys - eg. C+ vs. C average for A-levels.


    So why are there only 1/3 female judges then, if their graduations are in average better?
    This does not follow from your link, either. The BBC article deals with higher education in general - we do not know, from that article, how boys and girls are doing in law school. However, I'm sure you'll be happy to note that the same does seem to hold true for law as well:

    Grades – LSSSE (indiana.edu)

    So I guess that renders my objection academic, but I wanted to show how one should not read too much into things.


    The answer is simple male networks.
    Things are never that simple. Similar disparities can be found elsewhere as well, where there is no tradition for the Old Boys' Club. Especially when it comes to federal judges, which is the topic here, the question is moot as they are all subject to presidential nomination - which means they are invariably nominated for political reasons.


    But hopeless:

    Conservatives will rant because of male discrimination, even if it are their networks in reality which preserve their privileges and prevent female careers.
    This may be true in specific instances, but much too simplistic an explanation on a national level.

    I think women would work longer, if they don't have to take the kids from school, make homework with them, cook lunch, do other housework, while the males are sitting lazy on the couch drinking beer and watching TV.

    In Britain in 2016, according to the Office for National Statistics, women did almost 60% more of the unpaid work, on average, than men.
    That's because men do more of the paid work. They don't do less work, but the unpaid work is just as important and needs to be done as well. And typically, women are the ones to choose that unpaid work, because they tend to have an actual desire to spend time with their infants. Men are generally more willing rather than keen to do the same. So sure, women would do more of the paid work, if they would do less of the unpaid work - but that would mean men would have to do less of the paid work so they could do the unpaid work. If both work full time, then it is only fair to share the unpaid work 50/50. If one person works fewer hours at a paid job, it is only reasonable for that person to do more around the house.
    Last edited by Kissaki; January 25, 2022 at 08:53 AM.

  16. #16
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,789

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Quote Originally Posted by Kissaki View Post
    That's because men do more of the paid work. They don't do less work, but the unpaid work is just as important and needs to be done as well. And typically, women are the ones to choose that unpaid work, because they tend to have an actual desire to spend time with their infants. Men are generally more willing rather than keen to do the same. So sure, women would do more of the paid work, if they would do less of the unpaid work - but that would mean men would have to do less of the paid work so they could do the unpaid work. If both work full time, then it is only fair to share the unpaid work 50/50. If one person works fewer hours at a paid job, it is only reasonable for that person to do more around the house.

    This. A colleague of mine just had a kid. His wife quit work altogether (booking person at a travel agency) while he took on 2 whole extra hours at work + started doing freelance work in the weekend.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  17. #17

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    This discussion cannot progress until people understanding that occupational controls are just controlling for sexism to begin with, and doesn't explain why or how choices are made. It's just a methodological mistake: occupational choice is not exogenous.

  18. #18
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,364

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Quote Originally Posted by Basilius View Post
    There are no biological imperatives; this is sexism by definition.
    Bingo.Enough said.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  19. #19

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Let’s not misinform about something so basic.

    Men and women can seem like they’re from different planets sometimes. Hormones help drive those differences. A new study shows how genes pass on the message.

    “It's as if you can deconstruct a social behavior into genetic components,” Shah says. "Each gene regulates a few components of a behavior without affecting other aspects of male and female behavior.”

    https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-...ences-behavior
    It has been well documented that, across human cultures and in most mammals, males are usually more aggressive and less nurturing than females. It's simple to blame male hormones, like testosterone, for male behavior such as aggression. But maybe it's in our genes, too. Indeed such social behavior also has a genetic basis, according to new research on mice by neuroscientists at the University of Virginia Health System.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0306214707.htm
    Despite these caveats, overall these findings indicate that individual differences in SOI and Support Network Size are partly driven by genetic effects on personality traits, and that these pathways differ between the sexes. Although associations between these genes and human sexual behaviour have been reported previously, we add to our understanding of the complex interplay between variables influencing human sociosexual behaviour by demon- strating that, in part, these genes exert their influence indirectly via Impulsivity in men and Openness in women. Variation in OPRM1 also influences Extraversion, which is positively associated with the size of women’s Support Networks. Together, these findings add an important dimension to our understanding of the genetic and dispositional factors underlying how individuals relate to social relationships both with sexual partners and their wider social networks.

    https://link.springer.com/content/pd...19-00120-5.pdf
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    No, we don't care about your libertarian "evidence".
    “Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty…Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.” - God Emperor Teddy

  20. #20

    Default Re: President Biden's first year in office

    Quote Originally Posted by Basilius View Post
    This discussion cannot progress until people understanding that occupational controls are just controlling for sexism to begin with, and doesn't explain why or how choices are made. It's just a methodological mistake: occupational choice is not exogenous.
    I don't think anyone is suggesting traditional gender roles aren't affecting people's choices. But traditional gender roles are not inherently sexist - it is the insistence that people cannot or must not defy gender roles which is sexist. It isn't sexism which caused women to dominate nurturing occupations, for example... but sexism will arise from that and solidify these gender roles. "That's woman's work" is a sexist statement, but it is not what caused women to do that work in the first place. However, even in a perfectly egalitarian society where there is no societal pressure for people to fit into specific gender roles, and even if that society had no sexist baggage from bygone times, even then it is more than possible that certain occupations would attract more of one sex or the other - and there is nothing wrong with that.

Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •